===
How previous presidents dealt with their immigration problem.
===What did Presidents Hoover , Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?
Back during the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.
Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for Returning veterans.
In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The program was called Operation Wetback. It was done so WWII and Korean War veterans would have a better chance at jobs. It took two years, but they deported them.
Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could surely do it today. If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.
Why, you might ask, can't they do this today? Actually the answer is quite simple. Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians looking for votes!
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes - 12 to 20 million illegal aliens – are depending on it.
Killings continue, especially against police officers, so I thought this might be of interest:
Interesting facts and figures on the problem of gun control in USA.
and then
Argentina/The United States Video
This past Friday, Obama made an appeal to American Jews via a broadcast sponsored by various Jewish Federations. I was unable to listen and doubt I would have could I because I have observed his foreign policy initiatives from the git go and they have mostly been failures and based on lies.
Not in any particular order:
He began by removing Churchill's bust, then went to Egypt and apologized for America and supported The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He withdrew America's weaponry from NATO, got into several spats with Netanyahu, withdrew our troops from Iraq, blamed a video for the death of Americans in Libya, drew lines in the sand and disregarded them, failed to supply weapons to Kurds, has been reluctant to attack ISIS (can't even pronounce Islamic terrorists as such) and caved when Putin growled and invaded The Ukraine.
I may have missed a few other tragic and pusillanimous events so I did not consider listening to the defense of his and Kerry's Iran Deal worth the time. (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e,and 1f. below.)
Obama is a master at employing the divide and conquer game of politics. He seems to have learned well these lessons from those with whom he has associated and whose writings and teachings he has embraced. He has pitted America's poor against the wealthy, blacks against whites, criminals and racists against the police and the list is endless.(See 1g.\ below.)
===
I call him Doofus this op ed writer calls him the "Democrat's Great White Dope." (See 2 below.)
===
I always try to end with a little humor:
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
The obscene drive to avoid any Senate vote on the Iran deal
Whether to approve the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran is the most important question to face Congress in years — yet the president wants to stop the Senate from even debating it.
He’s pushing Democrats to use the filibuster rule to stop the question from making it to the Senate floor — and Minority Leader Harry Reid’s rallying the votes to do it.
Of course, President Obama never wanted Congress to have a say here. But Congress voted itself an oversight role anyway — by 98-1 in the Senate.
Now Reid’s rounding up Democrats to derail the process they helped set up to “ensure the American people — through their elected representatives — a voice on any deal with Iran.”
Solid majorities in each house of Congress oppose the deal — as does an ever-growing majority of the American people, as every poll shows.
It’s easy to see why: Far from denying Iran a nuclear weapon, it (at best) leaves Tehran a nuclear breakout state in 15 years.
And it gives Iran hundreds of billions of dollars to aid its terrorist allies and buy countless non-nuclear arms — because the deal repeals all embargoes on Iran.
You can see why the president doesn’t want this debated on the Senate floor.
Yes, he can veto the resolution of disapproval and have his deal go ahead anyway, since opponents don’t seem to have the votes to override a veto. But he doesn’t want the embarrassment — or the risk that debate might actually change a few minds.
Obama may well succeed. New York’s Chuck Schumer and New Jersey’s Bob Menendez are so far the only Senate Democrats to publicly oppose the deal — and Schumer is sitting on his hands, refusing to press his colleagues or even speak out publicly.
This is an obscenity. The Senate calls itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” And the Constitution requires Senate consent for the approval of treaties.
Obama’s already done an end-run around the treaty rules. Will Senate Democrats enable even worse — a total mockery of Congress’ role?
It’s time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to go nuclear: To do just what Reid threatened when he ran the Senate, and change the rules for the filibuster.
It need only cover this unique case — but McConnell ought to force Democrats to actually filibuster if they want to prevent this vote.
To stand up on the floor, hour after hour, day after day — making a spectacle of themselves for all the nation, all the world, to see.
To show they’re that afraid of putting themselves on record on perhaps the most important question of their careers.
Obama and Reid are resorting to low politics on an issue vital to the nation. Republicans have a duty to finally answer hardball with hardball.
1a)
What division? Jewish community united as ever over Iran deal
Not only are left and right in Israel united in opposition to Obama's compact of appeasement; the deal has made bedfellows of an astonishing array of Jewish organizations in America.
The New York Times is out with a story about U.S. President Barack Obama ’s appeal to a Jewish community that is, in respect of the Iran deal, “ divided and troubled .” I don’t buy it. I haven’t done a double-blind study, but looking back over my 35 or more years covering the Jewish beat, I find it hard to think of a major question on which the Jewish community has been more united than it is in its opposition to Obama’s compact of appeasement with Iran.
It’s plain as day that the Jewish community is not unanimous on Iran. Then again, the only thing on which it’s ever been unanimous is on the singularity of God. Even then, it’s unanimous only if one excludes the atheists. It strikes me that the Jewish community is less divided and troubled over the Iran deal than it is, say, on matrilineal descent, or German reparations, or Zionism, or same-sex marriage, or conversion, or negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs.
No, the startling thing about the Iran deal is how united the Jewish community is in opposition. This starts with the fact that the democratically elected prime minister of Israel was, in a surprise to the pollsters, lofted to a third term after taking his case against the deal to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. This prime minister was opposed in the election by a presidential son who leads a center-left coalition and who also turns out to be against the Iran deal.
It’s not only left and right in Israel that the Iran appeasement has brought together. It’s also made bedfellows of an astonishing array of Jewish organizations in America. The Anti-Defamation League is in agreement with the Zionist Organization of America and the revisionists of Americans for a Safe Israel and the American Jewish Committee. When does that happen? Most of the federations in the big cities are against the deal, even if New York’s has stood neutral .
Polling of American Jews is all over the place and American Jews are generally more liberal than the American public, which is polling against the deal, as is Israel’s public . My own instinct is that the public statements by Jewish institutions and individual leaders send the newsworthy signal. Meantime, the number of rabbis signing petitions against the deal is running thrice that of supporters. Since when have the sages been so together?
At a Democratic Party meeting the other day, the cladium Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actually reported to have blocked a resolution praising Obama and the nuclear deal with Iran. To get an expression of support at a Democratic Party meeting, Haaretz reported, James Zogby had to circulate a side-letter.
Jewish support for the president’s deal is being voiced primarily (not exclusively) through J Street. J Street, in my view, plays an important role in this fight – but mainly like the dissenting rabbis did when the Sanhedrin was considering a capital case. The Sanhedrin couldn’t hand down a death sentence if the rabbis were unanimous; there had to be a dissenter to discover some merit in the case for accused or the proceedings would come into doubt. Not to draw any inappropriate comparisons (no one is being accused of a capital crime), but it strikes me that J-Street’s dissent underscores the breadth of the opposition.
The most wonderful skepticism was voiced the other day by a Washington policy analyst, Robert Satloff. His ten posers for the president , offered to Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, will become known as the Satloff Questions. They start with the fact that the president insists the Iran deal enhances the security of Israel and America’s Arab Gulf allies, yet he is offering them compensation security packages. “If the Iran deal bolsters their security, shouldn’t their security needs be going down, not up?"
Satloff marks the fact that Obama claims to understand Israel’s security needs more than it's democratically elected leaders. “Are there other democracies whose leaders you believe don’t recognize their own best security interests,” he asks, “or is Israel unique in this regard?” He also wants to know why the administration is reluctant to send Israel our best weapon against the Iranian atomic redoubts, the “‘mountain-busting’ Massive Ordnance Penetrator."
The last Satloff Question focuses on the president’s abandonment of his campaign promise that the deal he’d accept is that the Iranians “end their nuclear program.” The way Satloff puts it is: “Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015?” Satloff tells me in an overnight cable that he’s urging lawmakers to vote against the deal “as the only way to exert leverage to improve it."
That’s basically the strategy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined in March to the joint meeting of Congress. It’s also the recommendation that the liberal Democratic senator Chuck Schumer sketched in announcing his plan to vote no. Call it the AIJCUPOIP — for American Israeli Jewish Community Unified Position on the Iran Appeasement. J Street has validated that dissent is allowed. It’s a marvel there’s so little of it. Unanimity this broad comes along only once every generation or so. I say enjoy it while it lasts.
Seth Lipsky, the founding editor of The Forward and a former foreign editor of The Wall Street Journal, is editor of The New York Sun.
1b)Robert Satloff’s 10 Questions to President Obama about the Iran Deal:
1. You have argued that the Iran deal enhances Israel’s security and those of our Arab Gulf allies. At the same time, your administration has offered the Gulf states a huge security package by way of compensation and you have expressed frustration that the government of Israel has not yet entered into discussions with you to discuss ways to bolster its security. But isn’t this a paradox? If the Iran deal bolsters their security, shouldn’t their security needs be going down, not up?
2. It is surely legitimate for you to argue that the Iran deal enhances U.S. security but it certainly seems odd for you to claim to understand Israel’s security needs more than its democratically elected leaders. Are there other democracies whose leaders you believe don’t recognize their own best security interests or is Israel unique in this regard?
3. Constructive, respected, well-informed observers, like your former [National Security Council] Iran policy advisor Dennis Ross, have urged you to propose transferring to Israel the “mountain-busting” Massive Ordnance Penetrator as a way to boost Israel’s independent deterrence against Iran. But you have not done so. Instead, in your letter to Congressman [Jerrold] Nadler, you highlighted your administration’s plan to send Israel a much less capable weapon. Why are you reluctant to send Israel the best item we have in our inventory to address this profound threat?
4. You have said that the Iran nuclear agreement provides a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Would you agree, therefore, that the pursuit of an independent nuclear option by another Middle East country—say, Saudi Arabia—would be clear evidence that the Iran deal had failed?
5. In your letter to Congressman Nadler, you refused to spell out the penalties Iran would suffer for violations of the agreement, saying that “telegraphing in advance to Iran the expected response for any potential infractions would be counterproductive, potentially lessening the deterrent effect.” On the surface, this is difficult to understand—after all, as a constitutional law professor, you can appreciate that having clarity in terms of penalties for lawbreaking is a basic element of our legal system. If you aren’t willing to publicly spell out this approach to penalties, can you guarantee that the United States and its European partners have already agreed, in writing, on precisely what actions they will collectively take in response to different types of infractions? Will you share these details with at least the leaders of the relevant committees in Congress? Or is the real reason you aren’t willing to “telegraph” these penalties in advance [is] because we and the Europeans can’t agree on them?
6. In your letter to Congressman Nadler, you also said you “reserved the right to deploy new sanctions to address continuing concerns.” Can you spell out what sort of new sanctions you have in mind? Specifically, wouldn’t it make sense for you to ask Congress to articulate new sanctions now that would come into effect if our intelligence agencies reported that Iran was using its sanctions-relief windfall to transfer large sums (or expensive weapons systems) to its allies and terrorist proxies?
7. You have argued that the global sanctions regime falls apart if Congress rejects the Iran deal. But the key variable here is not Europe, China or some other foreign country—it’s the United States. Specifically, the sanctions regime only collapses if the U.S. stops enforcing the sanctions with the same vigor it has enforced them [with] in recent years, and instead goes back to the policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations, which refused to enforce ILSA [Iran and Libya Sanctions Act] despite overwhelming votes for that law in Congress. In the event of a “no” vote, can you promise that your administration will expend the same effort and resources to enforce U.S. sanctions laws against Iran as has been the case the last few years? And if that’s the case, what’s your explanation for how or why sanctions will collapse?
8. The supreme leader clearly wants the benefits of the deal—both in terms of sanctions relief and the international validation it brings for Iran’s nuclear program. Yet you seem to bend over backwards to be wary of saying things that might upset him. (Given the supreme leader’s continued hostility toward America, this is a characteristic that he doesn’t seem to share.) Specifically, in your letter to Congressman Nadler, why did you resort once again to the “all options are on the table” formulation in the event Iran dashes toward a bomb? Since a “dash” implies Iran would be hell-bent toward achieving its goal, why not state bluntly that we would use force to stop them? If they are dashing, haven’t they already violated the core commitment in the Iran agreement not to pursue a weapon? If they are dashing, the threat of renewed sanctions surely isn’t an effective deterrent. Wouldn’t candor produce more deterrence than subtlety?
9. In your American University speech, you said the Iran agreement produced a “permanent” solution to the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb. But just a few months ago, you told an NPR interviewer that Iran’s breakout time toward a bomb “would have shrunk almost down to zero” when restrictions on centrifuges and enrichment expire in after 10-15 years. Can both statements really be true?
10. In your final debate with Mitt Romney in October 2012, just before you came before American voters for the final time, moderator Bob Schieffer asked you specifically what sort of Iran deal you would accept. Your response was: “The deal we’ll accept is that they end their nuclear program.” Notwithstanding the significant achievements of the Iran agreement, it clearly falls short of “ending their nuclear program.” Moreover, you and your spokespeople regularly disparage as warmongers those who advocate what you once called for. Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015?
1c)
Joe Lieberman: Little Time Left to Speak Truth About ‘Terrible Agreement’ With Iran
“ Tomorrow’s rally is important, because next week Congress returns to Washington and actual debate on the Iran nuclear agreement begins,” retired Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman toldThe Algemeiner on Monday.
He was referring to the “Stop Iran Rally,” organized by the same grassroots movement that brought 15,000 people to protest the nuclear deal in New York City’s Times Square last month, being held on Tuesday outside the office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
“There is little time left for people who oppose this terrible agreement to speak the truth of why it threatens America’s security and the security of our allies in Israel and the Arab world to people in power in Washington,” Lieberman said. “Tomorrow we can directly thank Senator [Chuck] Schumer [D-NY] for his principle and courage in opposing this bad deal and express our disappointment to Senator Gillibrand that she is supporting it, and ask her to reconsider based on information about the secret side deals that has come out since she announced her support. ”
Coincidentally, Gillibrand’s office is located in the same Manhattan building (780 Third Avenue) as that of Schumer, among the few Democrats in Congress who have come out publicly against the deal.
The purpose of the self-described “bipartisan” demonstration is to persuade Gillibrand to change her position on the deal — reached in July between the U.S.-led P5+1 and Iran – when it is put to a vote in Congress no later than September 17.
Lieberman, a former Democrat who became an Independent – and whose 24-year congressional career was marked by his ability to “cross the aisle” and work with members outside of his party — will be heading Tuesday’s rally, together with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). There, the two will deliver a joint foreign policy speech.
Lieberman was just named chairman of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), a nonprofit advocacy organization that opposes the nuclear deal. Other recent manpower changes at UANI include the replacement of its current president, Dr. Gary Samore, who favors the deal but will remain on the group’s advisory board.
1d)
Rouhani Says Iran Will Not Abide by Security Council Resolution
2)
Joe Biden: The Great White Dope of the Democrat Party
Even if the Democrats had a strong candidate running, after eight years of the worst President in American history, the smart money would still have to be on a Republican winning the presidency in 2016. Unfortunately for the Left, instead of a strong candidate Democrats have a crook and a Commie dogfighting it out to be their nominee. With that as a background, you start to understand why Democrats could view a candidate as ridiculous as Joe Biden as a potential savior.
Of course for Democrats, the problem with having Joe Biden defeat Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to become their nominee would be that they would be stuck with Joe Biden as their nominee. You know, “Crazy Uncle” Joe. “Creepy Uncle” Joe. The uninspiring candidate who inappropriately touches women, says bizarre things and ran at 2% in the Democrat primaries in 2008 because nobody in his right mind wants him in charge of anything.
Granted, Biden does now have 8 years of experience as Barack Obama’s Vice-President since his run at the presidency in 2008, but is that really an advantage? All that means is that the baggage of Barack Obama’s failed presidency is tied around his neck like an anchor.
If he ran, Joe Biden would be responsible for the exploding national debt, rise of ISIS, losing the war in Iraq, Fast and Furious, the IRS persecution of the Tea Party scandal, Benghazi, 20% of Americans on food stamps, 11 million Americans leaving the workforce since Obama took over, America losing its AAA credit rating, the failed trillion dollar stimulus, the 25 million lost in the corporate welfare bailout of GM and Chrysler, the NSA spying on Americans, releasing five Taliban terrorists in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, Obama’s open border policies, unilateral amnesty and Obamacare among many, many other snafus, screw-ups, scandals and setbacks.
Essentially, a vote for Biden would be a vote for a third term of Obama and given that Obama’s approval rating is about 45% right now (If the polling data today was all likely voters, it would probably be closer to 40%), America doesn’t seem to have an appetite for four more years of incompetence, lying, racial division and lawlessness.
Moreover, let’s engage in a little real talk here: Black voters turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama in 2008 to make him the first black President. In 2012, black voters turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama to keep the first black President from going out as a one term loser. In 2010 and 2014, when a black man wasn’t at the top of the ticket, minority voters didn’t show up to vote and the Democrats got their brains beaten in.
In case you haven’t noticed, Joe Biden isn’t black.
That means minority voters will still vote for him, but they won’t turn out for him the same way they did for Obama.
Furthermore, in a time when the American people in both parties seem to be hungry for an outsider, just about the only person the Democrats could run who would seem like more an insider than Hillary Clinton is Biden. He has been locked away in the attic of the White House for eight years to keep him from embarrassing the Party, but every so often he emerges to inappropriately put his hands all over some uncomfortable-looking woman or to belt out a dumb quote like,
“Look, John [McCain’s] last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the No. 1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”
Democrats are desperate to find an answer to the question, “Who can save us from having Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as the nominee?” However, if the answer to a question is Joe Biden, that question is probably, “Who’s that old guy chasing the squirrel?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment